Post on 11-May-2018
1 Synergies and Differences between Biodiversity, Nature, Water and Marine Environment EU Policies - Executive Summary
Overview
Major international agreements and European and national policies, including the EU 2020
Biodiversity Strategy, have recently been implemented to tackle global declines in biodiversity.
However, despite these efforts, targets are far from achieved in aquatic ecosystems. In order to
revert current trends, it is necessary to not only understand the mechanisms that drive on-going
biodiversity loss, but to also identify where existing policies can either hinder or support
biodiversity conservation efforts.
This AQUACROSS report addresses this issue through (1) identifying the main international and
European-level policy drivers affecting biodiversity conservation targets (negatively or positively)
and (2) identifying and reviewing synergies and barriers between key environmental policies
protecting aquatic biodiversity in freshwater, coastal and marine realms in Europe.
Findings from this report will be applied as recommendations for further research in the
AQUACROSS project. Though this work will primarily be used within the project to frame research in
policy, there are important lessons that can be useful for EU policy-makers:
1. Despite some progress, Europe remains far from achieving policy objectives and having healthy
aquatic ecosystems.
A vast majority of freshwater and coastal habitats are deteriorated while many marine
species are in critical conditions. Reaching the EU Biodiversity Strategy objectives in
aquatic ecosystems remain very challenging.
1 This is the executive summary of AQUACROSS Deliverable 2.1: Synergies and Differences between Biodiversity,
Nature, Water and Marine Environment EU Policies. The full version of this document can be found at
www.aquacross.eu in project outputs
Synergies and Differences between
Biodiversity, Nature, Water and Marine
Environment EU Policies1
Executive Summary, D2.1
www.aquacross.eu
2 Synergies and Differences between Biodiversity, Nature, Water and Marine Environment EU Policies - Executive Summary
2. The EU Biodiversity Strategy largely relies on other EU policies to achieve its objectives for
aquatic ecosystems.
Importantly, the Birds and Habitats Directives (Nature Directives), the Water Framework
Directive (WFD) and Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) stand out as key
pieces of legislation, but they are either supported (positive synergies) or in
competition (conflicts) with multiple other environmental and sectoral policies.
3. There is clearly scope to mainstream further policy actions in sectoral policies.
The emphasis of the policy framework is to establish environmental targets and to
some extent tackle pressures; EU policy is weakest in diverting (economic) support
from economic activities (e.g. agriculture, aquaculture, fishing, industries, tourism) that
can harm aquatic biodiversity.
4. Ecosystem-based Management (EBM) has the potential to be a useful tool for policy integration,
and there is scope to make the concept operational through the implementation of existing key
environmental policies: the Nature Directives, WFD and MSFD.
Several existing synergies between the four directives were observed, but there is
scope for more integration with regards to monitoring programmes, objectives and
targets, planning processes, and decision-making criteria (e.g. exemptions and
derogations).
Furthering Science
To support improved implementation of European environmental policies and further the
application of EBM, political decision-making must be based on sound science. The AQUACROSS
report DL2.1 examined the key threats to aquatic biodiversity and their associated pressures.
Linking these threats to aquatic systems back to their social and political drivers provided a basis to
better understand where policy gaps exist and where further research is needed.
Bridging Policies
Though there have been numerous efforts to establish a political framework to conserve and
protect biodiversity in the EU, the work undertaken in this report shows that there is still a long way
to go before such efforts can be deemed successful. This work identifies and analyses key
environmental policies that potentially promote or hinder biodiversity conservation. Furthermore,
this work pushes the exploration, application and clarification of the EBM concept to policy-making
and applied research. An EBM mapping analysis of EU environmental policies provides a first take
on the suitability of the concept to be used in policy review analyses.
Promoting Innovation
While certain challenges must be addressed through amendments to policy and further
coordination between policy realms, other areas can offer opportunities for businesses to close this
gap. This report touches upon the impact of sectoral public policies and economic development in
either hindering or supporting EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy targets in aquatic environments. This
work highlights areas for amending sectoral policies to promote environmentally-friendly
innovation in the future. It also presents key areas for further policy developments and improved
implementation, in particular with regards to the application of EBM in environmental policy.
Businesses can capitalise on these observations in order to develop innovative products and
solutions for improved decision-making and management of aquatic realms.
3 Synergies and Differences between Biodiversity, Nature, Water and Marine Environment EU Policies - Executive Summary
1 Introduction
The EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy aims to implement the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020
and the Aichi Targets. It identifies six targets that cover the main factors driving biodiversity loss
and aim to reduce existing pressures on nature.
However, the “Mid-term Review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020”, published by the European
Commission in October 2015, concluded that “at the current rate of implementation, biodiversity
loss and the degradation of ecosystem services will continue throughout the EU“. Three main
reasons for this failure were identified: (i) weak level of implementation and enforcement efforts by
Member States, (ii) need for more effective integration of relevant policies, and (iii) setting of
“coherent priorities underpinned by adequate funding.”
Recognising these challenges, the AQUACROSS project focused part of its work on exploring how
the current policy framework either supports or hinders the achievement of the EU Biodiversity
Strategy targets. By identifying the most significant threats to aquatic biodiversity, as well as by
reviewing the gaps and limitations of the policy framework in place, AQUACROSS contributes to
improving aquatic biodiversity protection in Europe and promoting the implementation of an EBM
approach.
2 The AQUACROSS Project and DL2.1
The AQUACROSS project, funded under the EU’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation
Programme, seeks to improve the management of aquatic ecosystems, thereby supporting the
achievement of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy and the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020.
As part of the project work, Deliverable 2.1 (DL2.1) aims to identify and highlight the synergies,
barriers and opportunities between water-, marine- and nature-relevant policies for more effective
implementation of environmental protection policies across aquatic ecosystems in Europe. The
objectives of the report are to determine how EU policies and laws contribute to achieve and/or
hinder EU and international biodiversity targets and evaluate the coherence and/or incoherence of
current environmental protection policies affecting the management of aquatic ecosystems.
Target 1
•Conserving and restoring nature
through better application of the
Birds and Habitats Directives
with the goal of halting
biodiversity loss and restoring
biodiversity by 2020.
Target 2
•Maintaining, enhancing and
restoring (15% as minimum by
2020) ecosystems and their
services, by integrating green
infrastructure into land-use
planning.
Target 3
•Ensuring the sustainability of
agriculture and forestry through
enabling existing funding
mechanisms to assist in the
application of biodiversity
protection measures.
Target 4
•Ensuring sustainable use of
fisheries resources by 2015 with
the goal of achieving MSFD
targets by 2020.
Target 5
•Combating invasive alien
species.
Target 6
•Addressing the global
biodiversity crisis and meeting
international biodiversity
protection obligations.
4 Synergies and Differences between Biodiversity, Nature, Water and Marine Environment EU Policies - Executive Summary
3 Policy Framework for Aquatic Biodiversity
A large number of European policies can directly or indirectly impact aquatic biodiversity. By
considering common policy goals, data streams, objectives, and definitions, existing EU policy
frameworks could potentially be better streamlined to contribute more purposefully to meet global
initiatives. Thus, one of the first steps in AQUACROSS was to identify and characterise existing
European policies relevant to the achievement of EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy in aquatic
ecosystems. The objective was to understand relevant EU policies, their objectives and
implementation logic, as well as to identify what should be considered in more detail in further
analysis. Annex 2 of the report provides the templates used for the analysis and Annex 3 provides
the individual policy reviews.
What are the key EU environmental policies relevant for protecting aquatic
biodiversity?
The EU Biodiversity Strategy is translated into action in aquatic realms through a complex array of
environmental policies and laws, including the MSFD, WFD, the Nature Directives, the Invasive Alien
Species Regulation, as well as a number of sectoral policies, such as the Common Agricultural
Policy. The key EU environmental policies relevant for protecting aquatic biodiversity are the Nature
Directives, the WFD and the MSFD.
Key Environmental Policies Relevant for Protecting Aquatic Biodiversity
The Nature Directives
The Birds Directive (BD) aims to protect all wild bird species naturally occurring within the EU. The Habitats
Directive (HD) aims to conserve natural habitats and wild fauna and flora in the European territory of the
Member States to which the treaty applies. Both Directives require Member States to (1) establish a strict
protection regime for all wild European bird species and other endangered species listed in the HD, both
inside and outside protected sites; and (2) to designate core sites for the protection of species and habitat
types, and for migratory birds as listed in the HD and the BD. Together, these designated sites form a network
of nature areas, known as the European Natura 2000 Network.
The Water Framework Directive
The WFD aims to promote long-term sustainable water management based on a high level of protection of the
aquatic environment. All rivers, lakes, estuaries, groundwater and coastal waters out to one nautical mile (12
nautical miles for chemical status) all fall within the scope of the WFD. Divided into units called water bodies,
the WFD set ambitious environmental targets aiming for “good status” of all freshwater, transitional and
coastal water bodies, and for groundwater, by 2015, and introduces the principle of preventing any further
deterioration of status.
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive
The MSFD’s objective is to protect and preserve the marine environment, prevent its deterioration and restore
the environment in areas where it has been adversely affected. Covering marine waters within the sovereignty
or jurisdiction of Member States as well as the seabed and subsoil, the MSFD aims to achieve or maintain
‘good environmental status’ (GES) in the waters concerned by 2020. The MSFD defines GES as the
environmental status of marine waters where these provide ecologically diverse and dynamic oceans and seas
which are clean, healthy and productive within their intrinsic conditions, and the use of the marine
environment is at a level that is sustainable.
5 Synergies and Differences between Biodiversity, Nature, Water and Marine Environment EU Policies - Executive Summary
To what extent are the key environmental policies relevant for protecting
aquatic biodiversity achieving their goals?
A review was carried out on the level of implementation of the Nature Directives, WFD and MSFD.
The work was based on an assessment of relevant European Commission, European Environment
Agency and other European-wide reports. Results show that progress made with the
implementation of the Nature Directives, WFD and MSFD mirrors the limited success of the EU
Biodiversity Strategy so far. Although EU environmental policies have delivered many improvements,
Europe remains far from meeting their proposed policy objectives and having healthy aquatic
ecosystems.
Which other EU policies are relevant for the achievement of the EU
Biodiversity Strategy?
In addition to the Nature Directives, the WFD and MSFD, other policies are relevant to the EU
Biodiversity Strategy. They include “emission control” policies, such as the Nitrates Directive or the
Urban Wastewater Directive, “sectoral” policies, such as the Common Agricultural Policy or the
Common Fisheries Policy, and general “growth” and infrastructure development policies, such as
transport policies or cohesion and structural funds.
As an example, Figure 1 below illustrates the range of policies influencing the achievement of the
EU Biodiversity Strategy in aquatic environments highlighting the complexity of the policy
framework. The inner core includes those EU policies directly mentioned in the EU Biodiversity
Strategy; the outer core is additional policies identified by the initial review work. Specific review
templates for the displayed policies can be found in Annex 3 of the report.
6 Synergies and Differences between Biodiversity, Nature, Water and Marine Environment EU Policies - Executive Summary
Figure 1: Initial Policy Review: Inner and Outer Core of Considered Policies Relevant for the
Achievement of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy Targets
4 Aquatic Biodiversity Threats Assessment
The initial policy review presented above shows that there are numerous policies that both directly
and indirectly affect the achievement of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy targets. To understand
the impact of European policies on aquatic biodiversity, the report examines in more depth how
European policies influence sectoral drivers (economic activities) resulting in pressures on the
aquatic environment. Sectoral drivers are linked to their respective governing European policies,
which are then assessed for their influence (positively or negatively) on aquatic biodiversity.
To carry out this analysis, the Drivers-Pressures-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework was
used. The DPSIR framework is a concept that helps to disentangle the biophysical and social aspects
of a system under study and is a component of the AQUACROSS concept. It can help categorise
threats to aquatic biodiversity along a defined causal chain, including natural and human Drivers
and Pressures leading to changed State in aquatic biodiversity and associated ecological, social and
economic Impacts. Following that causal chain, Responses aim to reduce Impacts by acting on
Drivers, Pressures or State. Annex 4 of the report provides the templates used to analyse the
threats, while Annex 5 includes the individual threat analysis.
7 Synergies and Differences between Biodiversity, Nature, Water and Marine Environment EU Policies - Executive Summary
What is threatening aquatic biodiversity in Europe?
For the purposes of this report, a selection of Pressures was made in order to illustrate a good
range of policy challenges across the freshwater, coastal and marine continuum. After an initial
assessment, the following six key threats that significantly impose pressures on aquatic ecosystems
and threaten their biodiversity were identified.
Nitrogen pollution: Nitrogen is a limiting nutrient in aquatic environments and an
enrichment of this nutrient can contribute to an increase in plant growth, changes in
nutrient cycling, uncontrolled growth of algae, eutrophication, acidification, an increase of
organic matter settlement, stimulation of cyanobacteria blooms, oxygen depletion, and
mortality of benthic fauna and fish. In cases where nitrogen leaches into the groundwater,
the pollutant ultimately reaches surface rivers and eventually impacts freshwater bodies
such as wetlands, lakes and rivers, as well as terrestrial ecosystems that interact with these
water bodies.
Extraction of species: Biodiversity is affected through the active removal of living organisms
and genetic resources from the ecosystem while the aquatic habitat can be disrupted as a
result of the processes involved in extractive activities, e.g. overfishing, bottom trawling,
mechanical seaweed harvesting, wild fish for feedstock. This affects population abundance
and parameters (including age, and sex ratios), which sequentially can impact the entire
makeup of the species concerned and the related food web in highly unpredictable ways.
Water abstraction: The over-abstraction of water resources from both surface water and
groundwater bodies can lead to reduced river flows, lower lake and groundwater levels, and
the drying-up of wetlands, influencing natural flow regimes, which is the most important
determinant for rivers and wetland ecosystems. Changes in flow features (e.g. the width,
depths, velocity patterns and shear stresses within the system) can lead to different
responses in ecosystem components and the overall ecosystem function, as aquatic species
have developed life history strategies in response to the natural flow regimes.
Invasive Alien Species: Invasive alien species (IAS) are species that are transported outside
of their natural range across ecological barriers due to direct or indirect human action.
Some of these species cannot adapt to the new environment and die out quite rapidly, but
others may survive, reproduce and spread. IAS can affect native biological diversity by
means of introducing competition, predation and transmission of diseases between alien
and native species. The highest numbers of IAS are found in aquatic ecosystems with high
levels of connectivity with other ecosystems, high human frequency and high levels of
disturbance.
Identification of
Major Threats
• Literature review of present
pressures on aquatic
biodiversity
• Select significant key threats
following the DPSIR framework.
Analysis of Drivers
• Analyse key mechanisms that
drive biodiversity loss
• Determine trends in
biodiversity loss as well as in
sectoral drivers
Synthesis of EU
Policy Framework
• Synthesise strengths and
weaknesses of the EU policy
framework for each identified
threat
• Draw conclusions for
limitations and gaps in policy
framework
8 Synergies and Differences between Biodiversity, Nature, Water and Marine Environment EU Policies - Executive Summary
Alteration to morphological conditions of aquatic habitats: Alterations to morphology are
linked to a range of pressures on aquatic ecosystems such as constructions (e.g. dams,
weirs, dykes and levees), channelization, straightening, deepening or dredging, and mineral
extraction. These anthropogenic interferences can negatively impact biodiversity in a direct
and indirect manner. Dams, for example, fragment habitat and migration opportunities, and
may cause species extinction. With modified flow dynamics, bed material may be trapped
and coarsened, which consequently leads to the depletion of spawning gravels
Plastic Waste in the aquatic environment: By allowing plastic waste to enter aquatic
ecosystems, biodiversity can be injured and die due to the entanglement in floating debris
or through ingesting of microplastic particles. Research shows that these microplastics can
also attract toxic chemical pollutants to their surface, harming further the animals that
ingest them. Evidence shows that plastics can be responsible for the increase of range of
non-native species through transportation of organisms and the creation of novel habitat.
Are threats to aquatic biodiversity increasing or decreasing?
The status of aquatic biodiversity in Europe is largely inadequate, especially since recent
assessments reveal poor results for freshwater, coastal and marine waters all across Europe. It
remains important to consider past and future trends, as they can help determine if the course of
political action in place permits the recovery of biodiversity, or if policies need to be adjusted in
order to achieve sufficient numbers in all aquatic species in European waters.
Some threats appear to have undergone positive trends in recent years. Reduction in nitrogen
concentration in European waters has undergone a positive trend over the last 30 years. However,
most European coastal waters still carry enough nitrogen in water bodies to lead to eutrophication.
In terms of species extraction, signs of improvement within the EU are also present. However, the
level of knowledge on species extraction is still very limited, especially in the Mediterranean Sea
and Black Sea regions, making it impossible to assess change over time. Invasive alien species (IAS)
are being introduced in Europe's seas with increasing regularity. Currently, Europe's seas harbour
around 1 400 IAS, 80% of which have been introduced since 1950. The amount of plastic waste
generated has dramatically increased in the 20th century and is pervasive now to all water realms.
Monitoring, data accuracy and availability are still a major issue. Some trends are yet unclear, in
particular regarding hydro-morphological alterations. While it is established that water abstraction
in Europe has generally decreased since the 1990s, it is expected that water stress will remain a
concern, and that improvements in efficiency will not be able to offset all impacts of climate
change.
In summary, while there are some positive tendencies present for threats on aquatic biodiversity in
Europe, the negative trends persist. Even though regulatory and monitoring frameworks are in
place and the negative effects of threats on biodiversity are scientifically proven, progress in
species conservation is too gradual or ineffective to make a sustainable impact. It needs to be
determined whether a fault is present in the policy frameworks in place to prevent degradation or if
other factors contribute to this decline.
What are the sectoral drivers of pressures that lead to aquatic biodiversity
loss?
AQUACROSS has identified a number of key drivers of aquatic biodiversity loss in order to link these
activities to key pressures on aquatic biodiversity. Some drivers were identified across multiple
9 Synergies and Differences between Biodiversity, Nature, Water and Marine Environment EU Policies - Executive Summary
threats and have been grouped below, while others play a more significant role in relation to a
single (see Table 1).
Table 1: Summary of Key Drivers in Relation to their Contribution to Key Threats to Aquatic
Biodiversity
Nitrogen
Pollution
Extraction of
Species
Water
Abstraction
Invasive
Alien
Species
Morphological
Alterations
Plastic
Waste
Agriculture X X X
Urban areas X X X X
Water utilities X X X
Commercial
fishing
X X
Aquaculture X X X X X
Energy X X X
Transport X X X X
Industry X X X X X
Waste sector X X
Tourism X X X X
Species trade X
Overview of the economic importance of sectoral drivers to the European
economy
Though these key drivers and their activities contribute to producing pressures that threaten
aquatic biodiversity, they also represent significant economic sectors that the European economy
relies upon. They lead to economic growth, are important for employment, and supply valuable
services and products necessary to society, such as food, energy and clean water. Policy responses
need to account for these socio-economic factors, understand the economic driving forces
underpinning threats to aquatic biodiversity, and the likely trajectory of current and future
pressures.
Table 2 presents a synthesis of the information gathered per driver. The provided figures confirm
that drivers underpinning aquatic biodiversity loss also represent critical sectors for the European
economy. Forecasts also indicate an intensification of each driver, which is likely to result in higher
pressure on aquatic ecosystems and further biodiversity loss. European policies need to account for
these trends, and provide adequate responses.
10 Synergies and Differences between Biodiversity, Nature, Water and Marine Environment EU Policies - Executive Summary
Table 2: Drivers Leading to Negative Impacts to Aquatic Biodiversity and their Future Economic Outlook
Driver Impact on key threat to aquatic biodiversity Significance to European Economy Trends
Agriculture Nitrogen inputs through diffuse pollution; water for irrigation
purposes; required infrastructure causes alteration to
morphology; land reclamation and drainage.
Utilised agricultural area: 170 million hectares (2013); 10.8 million farms operating in the EU-28
(2014); Employs 9.5 million people, 4.4% of total employment (EU-28, 2013); Share of agriculture in
EU-27’s GDP (GVA/GDP): 1.2% (2013)
Urban areas
Contributes to alterations in morphology; discharges of
untreated municipal sewage are a major source of plastic
pollution; contributes significantly to water abstraction and
nitrogen pollution.
67% of EU GDP in metropolitan regions of more than 250 000 inhabitants;7% of the EU’s population
live in cities of over 5 million inhabitants; In the EU: 26 cities of more than 1 million inhabitants, and
373 cities of more than 100 000 inhabitants; 72.4% of population lives in cities, towns and suburbs
Water utilities Contributes to water abstraction and nitrogen pollution;
discharges contribute to nitrogen and plastic.
Involves 75 400 enterprises and employs 1.5 million people; A GVA of 97.5 billion EUR
Commercial
fishing
Contributes to species extraction; trawling affects genetic
structure of a species population; plastic waste generated
during commercial fishing.
GVA of EU fisheries amounts to 3.4 billion EUR; Provides 127 686 jobs; 83 590 fishing vessels
registered in the EU fleet
Aquaculture
Contributes to excess nitrogen through fish feed and through
N2O emissions to the atmosphere; linked to alteration to
morphology.
Supplies 24% of Europe’s seafood (2014); GVA of 1 500 million EUR (EU-28) (2013); 80 000
employees in a full time equivalent of around 27 000 jobs (2013); 8th biggest aquaculture producer
in the world (2015)
Energy
Causes dredging and direct physical modifications to the
seabed through the construction of oil and gas infrastructure;
combustion of fossil fuels of coal lead to nitrogen atmospheric
emissions and subsequent deposition; abstracts water for
cooling purposes
Renewable sources supply 25% of primary energy production in Europe;
Hydropower accounts for 16.6% of primary energy production, the EU 28’s largest renewable energy
resource (2013); Offshore wind: 10% of total wind energy in EU; 35 000 employees; GVA of 2.4
billion EUR; Crude oil and gas: 9.1% and 15.5%, respectively, of energy supply
Transport
Contributes to nitrogen emissions through the combustion of
fossil fuels and the subsequent atmospheric deposition;
impacts the morphology; shipping introduces IAS. major driver
of plastic waste
Road transport: 49.4% of total good transport within the EU, inland waterways: 4%, intra-EU
maritime transport: 31%; Turnover for road freight: 312 billion EUR; 2 945 700 employees; Turnover
for road passenger: 121 billion EUR; 1 988 500 employees; Shipping: 75% of imported and exported
goods by weight; 50.7% of EU trade
Industry
Contributes to nitrogen emissions through wastewater
discharges; emissions of pollutants and sediments downstream;
industrial plastic waste becomes marine debris. Blue
biotechnology depends on the extraction of aquatic genetic
resources
Chemical is the 5th largest industry of EU; contributes 7% of EU’s manufacturing added value; 17%
of global production; 19 000 firms in the mining and quarrying industry in EU-28; 3.3 million firms
in construction; Blue biotechnology industry: GVA of 800 million EUR; 18 000 natural products and
4 900 patents associated with genes of marine organisms
Waste sector Contributes to plastic waste; contributes to the emissions of a
range or pollutants
Turnover of 137 billion EUR; 2 million jobs; 1.1% of EU GDP.
Tourism
Demands water abstraction; contributes to emission of
nitrogen through wastewater; tends to alter the natural
environment causing, for example, changes in siltation
Tourism contributes up 10% of EU GDP; employs 12 million people (2013); Turnover of 941 075
million EUR.; Coastal and maritime tourism: 3.2 million jobs and 183 billion EUR in GVA; or 1/3 of
the EU’s maritime economy.
Species trade A key pathway for IAS introduction, in particular the marine
ornamental fish trade.
Total value of imports for ornamental fish into the EU is 72.3 million EUR; Imports of freshwater
species into EU accounts for 82.9% of the total value of imports for the year.
11 Synergies and Differences between Biodiversity, Nature, Water and Marine Environment EU Policies - Executive Summary
Which EU policies directly and indirectly influence aquatic biodiversity?
Overall, the European policy framework represents a comprehensive set of legislation and
regulations protecting aquatic biodiversity. The review has shown that there are number of
transversal environmental policy instruments which work across threats (e.g. Nature Directives,
WFD, MSFD, LIFE, EIA, and SEA) as well as more specific ones for each threat.
Regarding nitrogen pollution, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) and
the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) set target values for the eutrophic state of freshwater
and coastal waters, and promote measures to reduce nitrogen emissions respectively from
the domestic and industrial sector, and the agricultural sector. Other relevant policies
include the Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC) the Bathing Water Directive (previously
76/100/EEC, now 2006/7/EC) and the Groundwater Directive (2006/118/EC). The WFD
integrates all these objectives in its status assessment and the establishment of River Basin
Management Plans and Programmes of Measures, while the MSFD mostly relies on
freshwater and land related policies, such as the WFD and the Common Agricultural Policy,
to reduce nitrogen emissions. The nitrogen threat is also tackled through legislation on air
quality protection, with the National Emission Ceilings Directive (2001/81/EC), the Directive
on Industrial Emissions concerning Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control
(2008/1/EC), and the Ambient Air Quality Directive (2008/50/EC). All three seek to reduce
NOX emissions through controls on emissions (e.g. licensing and authorisations) and the
promotion of best available techniques (e.g. more efficient combustion processes).
In terms of species extraction, the Common Fisheries Policy mainly promotes measures to
reduce pressures from fishing activities, for example by increasing selectivity and reducing
unwanted catches. Furthermore, it should lead, as it is the case with the multi-species plan
for the Baltic, to the adoption of multi-species plans that contain conservation measures
with quantifiable targets to restore and maintain fish stocks at levels capable of producing
Maximum Sustainable Yield and control over the number of fishing capacity of the fishing
fleet. Some of these measures are financially supported by the Regulation (508/2014) on
the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and reinforced by the MSFD.
Water abstraction is considered in the WFD, which promotes measures to tackle pressures
(e.g. water use efficiency, alternative water sources) and mitigate the impact on state of
water abstraction (e.g. artificial recharge of groundwater bodies). Also, the principle of
recovery of the costs of water services (Art. 9), including environmental and resource costs
and hence the impact of water services on the environment, is implemented via water
pricing, which provide incentives for users to use water resources efficiently. Further
emphasis is given in the EU policy framework on water reuse and groundwater recharge
through the Communication (2007) “Addressing the challenge of water scarcity and
droughts in the European Union”, and the Communication (2015) “Closing the loop –An
Action plan for the Circular Economy”. Water use in agriculture is targeted via a register and
authorisation scheme on irrigation and funding for improving irrigation techniques under
the Common Agricultural Policy.
Combating IAS is established through the Directive (29/2000) on “protective measures
against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant
products and against their spread within the Community”, the Regulation (304/2011)
concerning use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture, and the Regulation
(1143/2014) on invasive alien (non-native) species. The latter regulation foresees three
12 Synergies and Differences between Biodiversity, Nature, Water and Marine Environment EU Policies - Executive Summary
types of interventions: prevention, early detection and rapid eradication, and management.
Aside from these regulations, the Nature Directives place restrictions on the deliberate
introduction of alien species into the wild. Most of the regulations, policies and directives
focus on decreasing pressures (i.e. restrict and regulate IAS introduction into the wild) but
not drivers (e.g. transport, aquaculture).
Alterations to morphology are not tackled by specific policies, but more or less explicitly
integrated in the Nature Directives, WFD and MSFD. The WFD establishes a specific
management regime for water bodies most affected by morphological changes through
their designation as Heavily Modified Water Bodies. The Note (2011) “Towards Better
Environmental Options for Flood Risk Management” encourages the adoption of less
intrusive flood risk protection measures such as Natural Water Retention Measures.
Transversally, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive (2011/92/EU, amended
by 2014/52/EU) and the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive (2001/42/EC)
are important instruments for considering and minimising impacts of new morphological
alterations. Sectoral funding, such as those provided by the Regulation (1305/2013) on
support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development,
can be used to restore the morphological state of freshwater and coastal waters.
There are specific directives and policies in place to limit and eliminate plastic waste. The
Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) sets the basic concepts and definitions related to
waste management, such as definitions of waste, recycling, recovery. The Packaging and
Packaging Waste Directive (94/62/EC) requires Member States to ensure that preventive
measures are implemented by, for example, national programmes, extended producer
responsibility programmes, and to develop packaging reuse systems for the reduction of
the impact of packaging and packaging waste on the environment. The wastewater
treatment sector is, as mentioned above, regulated by the Urban Waste Water Treatment
Directive (91/271/EEC). The Communication (2011/571) Resource Efficient Europe sets out
concrete actions on marine litter by establishing Special Areas of Conservation together with
the Nature Directives’ Natura 2000 Network and designating, for instance, that by 2020,
market and policy incentives reward business investments in efficiency.
The review showed that environmental policies may establish specific targets to reach a state of
aquatic environment, or may require measures that tackle pressures and drivers impacting state.
Nature Directives focused on protecting habitats and species and the environmental targets of the
WFD and MSFD. The reviewed threats are well covered by these four directives with further targets
specifically set by other Directives for nitrogen (e.g. nitrogen standards), species extraction (e.g.
Maximum Sustainable Yield) and IAS. Current policy developments on Ecological Flows and Green
Infrastructure provide the basis for further policy action on the water abstraction and morphological
threats. There may be indirect links, for example when a general objective aims to improve total
environmental status. Environmental mainstreaming is also another avenue, for example when
conditions are attached to the distribution of sectoral subsidies.
However, there remain significant deficits within the EU legal framework, reflected by the
unfavourable results of the Biodiversity Strategy Mid-Term Review that suggest a wide array of
persisting negative trends in biodiversity loss. Table 3 below identifies those policies that promote
threats to Aquatic Biodiversity. Overall, the EU policy landscape appears to have a mixed effect: in
some ways it provides protection to aquatic biodiversity, in other ways, it encourages activities that
lead to further deterioration.
13 Synergies and Differences between Biodiversity, Nature, Water and Marine Environment EU Policies - Executive Summary
Table 3: Summary of European Policy Mechanisms that Directly or Indirectly Lead to Threats to Aquatic Biodiversity
Sectoral Policies Promoted Drivers Key Threats to Aquatic
Biodiversity
1
Ag
ricu
ltu
re
2
Urb
an
A
reas
3
Water U
tilities
4
Fish
in
g
5
Aq
uacu
ltu
re
6
En
erg
y
7
Tran
sp
ort
8
In
du
stry
9
Waste secto
r
10
T
ou
rism
11
Sp
ecies T
rad
e
12
N
itro
gen
Po
llu
tio
n
Sp
ecies
Extractio
n
13
W
ater
Ab
stractio
n
14
In
vasive A
lien
Sp
ecies
15
A
lteratio
ns to
Mo
rp
ho
lo
gy
16
Plastic W
aste
Regulation (508/2014) on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Regulation (380/2013) on the Common Fisheries Policy ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Communication (COM (2004) 254 final/2) Innovation in the Blue Economy ✔ ✔
Regulation (1307/2013) establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support
schemes
✔ ✔ ✔
Regulation (1305/2013) for European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development ✔ ✔ ✔
Regulation (1300/2013) on Cohesion Fund ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Regulation (1301/2013) on Regional Development Funds ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Directive (2009/28/EC) on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable resources ✔ ✔ ✔
Communication (COM/2014/014 final) Towards an Industrial Renaissance ✔ ✔
Communication (COM/2010/0352 final) Europe, the world's No. 1 tourist destination ✔ ✔
Communication (COM (2004) 453 final) on Short Sea Shipping ✔ ✔ ✔
White paper (COM (2011) 144 final) Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area ✔ ✔
Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) ✔
Fuel Quality Directive (2009/30/EC) ✔
Regulation (710/2009) on organic aquaculture animal and seaweed production ✔ ✔
Legend: = Direct support (funding mechanisms) that increase threats to aquatic biodiversity;
= Encouraging a change of sectoral practices that leads to increase the threat;
= Promotion of the threat through new practices by changing the regulatory landscape
= Not applicable
14 Synergies and Differences between Biodiversity, Nature, Water and Marine Environment EU Policies - Executive Summary
5 Synergies and Barriers between Policies and
Biodiversity Protection
As the previous section showed, there are many policies that impact aquatic biodiversity in the EU,
either directly or indirectly through their promoted measures or financing instruments. The key
environmental policies—the Nature Directives, the WFD and MSFD—are the main ones that aim to
protect aquatic biodiversity against negative pressures. As such, this section reviews the synergies
and barriers between these policies to assess how they work together to achieve this goal through
the implementation of EBM.
In AQUACROSS, EBM is seen as an integrative approach to help address the challenges around
implementing policies that govern aquatic ecosystems, and can be used to sustainably manage and
protect biodiversity. The aim of this assessment is to evaluate the possible future use of EBM as an
integrative policy concept for the improved protection of aquatic biodiversity. With this European
“policy framing”, work within the AQUACROSS case studies will examine more specifically the
implementation challenges and innovations from a bottom-up perspective.
The assessment began with a review of EBM definitions to identify policy relevant principles of EBM.
Following this, the key environmental policies were compared against these principles to highlight
the individual performance of each policy in promoting or possibly hindering each principle. Results
of this step were then synthesised to provide an overview of all policies and their ability to
coordinate to promote EBM for aquatic ecosystems and to protect their biodiversity. The templates
used for this assessment are included in Annex 6 and the results of the individual analysis for each
policy are provided in Annex 7 of the main report.
A policy-relevant definition of EBM
One of the first steps of the assessment involved the identification of principles of EBM that are (i)
relevant to AQUACROSS and aquatic ecosystems and (ii) mindful of existing policy requirements.
EBM is a complex concept, incorporating a wide range of principles. Though the concept of EBM has
taken root in the political sphere, there is currently no single, agreed-upon overarching definition
of EBM. However, it can generally be understood as any management or policy option intended to
restore, enhance and/or protect the resilience of an ecosystem so as to sustain or improve the flow
of ecosystems services and conserve biodiversity (see AQUACROSS Deliverable 3.1- Innovative
Concept). This includes any course of action purposely intended to improve the ability of an
ecosystem to remain within critical thresholds, to respond to change and/or to transform to find a
Defining EBM
Principles
• Review existing EBM definitions
and build upon AQUACROSS EBM
concept
• Extract key policy-relevant
principles of EBM
Mapping Key Env.
Policies
• Assess key environmental
policies against established EBM
pinciples
• Determine how each policy
supports or hinders each
principle
Synthesis of
Mapping Results
• Cross-compare each EBM
principle across reviewed policies
• Extract conclusions regarding
the strengths and weakness of
the policies towards their
coordinated integration of EBM
principles
15 Synergies and Differences between Biodiversity, Nature, Water and Marine Environment EU Policies - Executive Summary
new equilibrium or development path. As such, the following policy-relevant principles for EBM
were developed for the purpose of the assessment. These are summarised in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Policy Relevant Principles of Ecosystem-based Management
Do the key EU policies sufficiently integrate the EBM principles?
With the policy-relevant principles developed, it is possible to analyse how key environmental
policies relevant to protecting aquatic biodiversity incorporate these principles. This part of the
analysis is based on different aspects of each Directive’s respective legislation, including, objectives
(i.e. overall objectives as well as targets and standards), spatial and temporal scales (i.e. units of
management), planning processes and steps, and management measures promoted to achieve each
Directive’s aims. In addition, supporting documents issued by the European Commission (e.g., EU
communications, Common Implementation Strategy guidance documents and texts, relevant
publications, etc.).
The results of this analysis are visually presented in Table 4, below. Overall, the Nature Directives
are the least comprehensive in their incorporation of the EBM principles. With one icon for each
principle, this indicates that the legislative text and supporting documents are somewhat
supporting if not neutral in their representation of each principle. As such, the Nature Directives do
16 Synergies and Differences between Biodiversity, Nature, Water and Marine Environment EU Policies - Executive Summary
not integrate many of the elements of EBM; but, on the other hand, the directives do not prevent
EBM implementation and some of their requirements are coherent with EBM principles. Conversely,
the WFD and the MSFD (both more recent policies than the Nature Directives) better incorporate
elements of the EBM principles. The WFD is somewhat supportive of the EBM principles overall; its
strengths are in the development and use of multi-disciplinary knowledge, policy coordination, and
adaptive management. Though it lacks some elements of the EBM principles, like the Nature
Directives, it does not prevent EBM implementation. Lastly, the MSFD is the most aligned piece of
legislation with the EBM principles, with many principles categorised as supported and only two
categorised as being somewhat supported if not neutral.
Table 4: Comparison of Main Environmental EU Directives against EBM Principles
Legend: Two icons = Supporting; One icon = Supporting/Neutral; No icons = Hindering
Can EBM act as an integrative policy concept across key environmental
policies protecting aquatic biodiversity?
Overall, there is a lot of EU policy support for the implementation of EBM and potential to increase
synergies between policies with this purpose. A summary of key findings of the main strengths and
weaknesses or challenges of the current policy context is provided in Table 5. The EU policy
framework in the form of the Nature Directives, WFD and MSFD support several key dimensions of
EBM, with the MSFD being the most explicit about EBM implementation. In practice, however,
mechanisms and instruments set in place in the legislative framework are still limited, especially
with regards to the implementation of the ecosystem services approach, the integration of planning
processes and monitoring programmes, the integration of local knowledge in the decision-making
process, coherent approaches to exemptions and derogations, and the consideration of
uncertainties in management and governance.
17 Synergies and Differences between Biodiversity, Nature, Water and Marine Environment EU Policies - Executive Summary
Table 5: Strength and Challenges in the Coordination of the Nature Directives, WFD and MSFD
for the Implementation of EBM
EBM Principle Strengths Weaknesses/Challenges
1: EBM considers
ecological integrity,
biodiversity,
resilience and
ecosystem services
Reviewed policies support the key
concepts of EBM implicitly, with
undisputed linkages in their
objectives with biodiversity
conservation.
No clear policy framework for taking into account
ecosystem services and managing trade-offs, which
reduces the potential effectiveness of the policy
instruments towards biodiversity protection. The WG
MAES framework could be applied to streamline
approaches among the directives.
2: EBM is carried
out at appropriate
spatial scales
Management is encouraged at
relevant ecological scales, while
multiple levels in social systems
(and the need to coordinate) are
acknowledged.
No clear framework or guidance on how to work
across scales; no clear acknowledgment of cross water
realms linkages (except in MSFD); objectives set a
specific scales (e.g. water body level in WFD) may not
take into account ecological dynamics
3: EBM develops
and uses multi-
disciplinary
knowledge
Reviewed directives encourage
inter-disciplinary approaches and
consider societal values and interest
in decision-making
No explicit requirement to integrate local knowledge
(e.g. to improve contextual understanding of
management units). Differences in objectives, scope
and approaches result in different monitoring needs.
Synergies in monitoring programmes can be exploited.
The main objective should be to integrate monitoring
as far as possible.
4: EBM builds on
social-ecological
interactions,
stakeholder
participation and
transparency
Participation is an element of all
reviewed directives and mechanisms
are crafted to enable a balance
between ecological and social
concerns.
Unclear distribution of powers and role of local
communities in decision-making unclear (e.g. who
decides?). Multiple types of criteria for derogations
among directives which increase potential for different
interpretation and conflicts
5: EBM supports
policy coordination
Policy coordination is strongly
encouraged. Scope for revisions of
the legal acts to foster further
policy integration in line with
Biodiversity Strategy objectives.
Scope for funding instruments to
support integration of Programme
of Measures
Few specific mechanisms that help strong
coordination are proposed, especially outside
protected areas.
6: EBM incorporates
adaptive
management
Policies support evaluation of
management measures, with clear
(although separate) planning cycles
for the Nature Directives, WFD and
MSFD.
No strong framework for dealing with uncertainties
(and climate change), no legislative guidance with
regards to timescale envisaged, limited length of
regulatory requirements (e.g. WFD revisions in 2020s)
and no clear methodological proposition (e.g. use of
scenarios)
6 Conclusions
This report aimed to identify the main international and European level policy drivers affecting
biodiversity conservation targets (negatively or positively), as well as, to identify synergies,
opportunities and barriers between existing environmental and related sectoral policies relevant for
the protection of aquatic ecosystems. This work focused on the implementation of the EU 2020
18 Synergies and Differences between Biodiversity, Nature, Water and Marine Environment EU Policies - Executive Summary
Biodiversity Strategy, examining how it interacts and relies on other policies as well as how existing
policies can promote better management of aquatic ecosystems through EBM.
Despite the existence of multiple international agreements on the conservation and preservation of
biodiversity, much of the world’s and Europe’s biodiversity levels remain in decline. The EU 2020
Biodiversity Strategy, in particular, is failing to meet its targets and other key environmental policies
are similarly challenged. Thus, while some progress has been made, Europe remains far from
achieving policy objectives and having healthy aquatic ecosystems. A vast majority of freshwater
and coastal habitats are deteriorated while many marine species are in critical conditions.
To better implement the EU Biodiversity Strategy, other EU policies must be implemented to achieve
the Biodiversity Strategy objectives for aquatic ecosystems, including the Nature Directives, the WFD
and MSFD. These Directives are either supported or in competition with multiple other
environmental and sectoral policies, the legal and policy provisions of which can either directly or
indirectly aim to reduce pressures on aquatic ecosystems and biodiversity or reinforce those
pressures.
There is clearly scope to mainstream further policy actions in sectoral policies by mainstreaming
biodiversity protection into existing policy frameworks. The emphasis of the policy framework is to
establish environmental targets and to some extent tackle pressures. As seen through the
assessment of threats to aquatic biodiversity, the EU policy framework is more developed for a
number of pressures, such as extraction of species, input of nitrogen, invasive alien species and,
increasingly so, plastic waste. Water abstraction and alterations to morphology of aquatic habitats
are addressed by few specific policy instruments at the EU level. In addition, EU policy is weakest in
diverting (economic) support from economic activities (e.g. agriculture, aquaculture, fishing,
industries, tourism, etc.) that can harm aquatic biodiversity.
Operationally, how can Member States and regional authorities improve the coherence of EU
policies to meet biodiversity targets? This was examined through the EBM analysis, which
researched the potential for implementing EBM as an innovative, integrative management approach
for the safekeeping and protection of aquatic biodiversity. The analysis focused on the Nature
Directives, WFD and MSFD as the four key environmental policies aiming to protect aquatic
biodiversity, and revealed that EBM can for the most part be made operational through their
implementation.
The four directives put a lot of emphasis on considering ecological integrity in management
approaches, coordinating between multiple ecological and social scales, using multi-disciplinary
knowledge, encouraging stakeholder participation, establishing more transparent reporting,
increasing policy coordination and establishing adaptive cycles of revisions. Although few
mechanisms and instruments currently exist, the four directives do not conflict with a number of
other dimensions of EBM, such as the use of the ecosystem services approach to guide decision-
making, the building of social-ecological resilience, co-management with local communities, and
the consideration and management of uncertainties in decision-making.
Several existing synergies between the four directives were observed, but there is scope for more
integration with regards to monitoring programmes, objectives and targets, planning processes,
and decision-making criteria (e.g. exemptions and derogations). These issues, and how to
overcome them, must be further examined and researched through practical experiences in a
bottom-up approach.
Suggested Citation: Rouillard, J., Lago, M., Abhold, K., Roeschel, L., Kafyeke, T., Klimmek, H. and
Mattheiß, V., 2016. “Synergies and Differences between Biodiversity, Nature, Water and Marine
Environment EU Policies: Deliverable 2.1 Executive Summary.” Report as part of the Horizon 2020
project AQUACROSS (Knowledge, Assessment, and Management for AQUAtic Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services aCROSS EU policies).
AQUACROSS Partners
Ecologic Institute (ECOLOGIC)—Germany
Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (FVB-IGB)—Germany
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of the United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization (IOC-UNESCO)—France
Stichting Dienst Landbouwkundig Onderzoek (IMARES)—Netherlands
Fundación IMDEA Agua (IMDEA)—Spain
University of Natural Resources & Life Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology and Aquatic
Ecosystem Management (BOKU)—Austria
Universidade de Aveiro (UAVR)—Portugal
ACTeon – Innovation, Policy, Environment (ACTeon)—France
University of Liverpool (ULIV)—United Kingdom
Royal Belgium Institute of Natural Sciences (RBINS)—Belgium
University College Cork, National University of Ireland (UCC)—Ireland
Stockholm University, Stockholm Resilience Centre (SU-SRC)—Sweden
Danube Delta National Institute for Research & Development (INCDDD)—Romania
Eawag – Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (EAWAG)—Switzerland
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)—Belgium
BC3 Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3)—Spain
Contact aquacross@ecologic.eu
Coordinator Dr. Manuel Lago, Ecologic Institute
Duration 1 June 2015 to 30 November 2018
Website http://aquacross.eu/
Twitter @AquaBiodiv
LinkedIn www.linkedin.com/groups/AQUACROSS-8355424/about
ResearchGate www.researchgate.net/profile/Aquacross_Project2